“If people were employed at creating heaven on earth, everybody would be happy; instead each one is creating his own heaven by creating hell for others.”

―

Bangambiki Habyarimana

==================

“Self-interest makes some people blind, and others sharp-sighted.”

—

Francois de La Rochefoucauld

===============

Well. As a business guy I most often view Life, government and politics, as well as business issues, thru a business lens.

It is fairly rare that I view business through a government prism. And, yet, as I sat down to discuss self-interest and managing self-interest as a leader I found that using a governing prism was the most appropriate.

Self-interest sounds like it could be defined fairly simply because, well, it revolves around ‘self.’

Ah. But ‘self’ depends on who is looking in the mirror as well as whatever ‘grouping of selfs’ you would like to gather up and discuss — in other words … self interest can vary depending on where you are standing.

That said, let’s discuss self-interest from a governing perceptive. Basically, self-interest can be captured in three concentric circles:

Self.

Country.

Global.

The business version could be self, group, company or self, company, country or, well, you get it.

Hmmmmmmm … ‘you get it.’ I do wonder if someone hasn’t worked in a larger company or even if they have but haven’t attained some management role if they ever ‘get it’ <completely at least>. Even being in management one can decide to keep their head down, under the guise of being focused on my responsibility, and just assume someone above in management is worrying about the larger picture and larger “interests” which will either benefit me or will not benefit me.

I learned this lesson early on in my management career – once I started managing a group. When I assumed the responsibility I assumed everyone would at some point do what I had done — changed companies and got new jobs. To be clear, I didn’t assume that everyone would actually do it I just assumed they would want to do it at some point. Therefore I viewed managing people and talking with people and leading the people through the full range of concentric interest circles. Simplistically, in my head, I said “I will train you and develop you so that you will be successful wherever you go from here.” My objective wasn’t just to make my group’s ‘self-interest’ a priority but rather insure that self, group, company and industry were all aligned so that the expertise and the ‘self’ could meet interests in all places at any time.

Yeah. That created some challenges.

Yeah. Sometimes it created some friction <because your group was always looking at other groups wondering why they did shit you didn’t do as well as it sometimes created a slightly different bar to meet than even the company itself may have demanded>.

But, yeah. It always created the best version of each employee <and me I imagine>.

I say all that because no good leader will ever suggest it is all about one circle of self interest.

They know it is not only foolish but not true.

Meeting the need of each circle of interest is never trickle down or even trickle up, it is more often the three ‘circles of self’ in a line in which little balls are constantly weaving their way side-to-side — think maybe the eyes of the Cylons in BattleStar Galactica.

Meeting interests at all self-levels takes work. And most of us being managed or living in the everyday world are okay with that when it is explained. But explaining it is important and maybe HOW you explain it is even more important.

While people are mostly well-meaning <albeit in today’s world we would criticize the way Jesus put on his sandals in the morning> most of us truly do not care about the decision maker’s decision making process or even the decision maker’s fate and we certainly have no interest in putting ourselves into the decision maker’s shoes.

Yeah. We naturally have self-interests and we weigh our own self-interests as we view the decision we will inevitably judge <prioritizing the other self interests as lower than our own but not mutually exclusive>.

You want a little of this without having to endure a little of that.

In other words, you want everything. You want to stand upon principles, you want the greater good to be served … uhm … without sacrificing anything. And, yet, we are more than willing to sacrifice some things for the greater good. Economists call this “the benevolence of self-interest.”

It is too simplistic to look at people as mere ethically agnostic optimizing machines.

At the foundation of all economic theory, and behavioral theory, is the assumption that people are driven/grounded by the rational pursuit of self-interest. But, as everybody knows, people are not rational and they often act selflessly wherein things like honor, duty, love, etc. enter into the interest calculation.

When it comes to self interest, all circles that is, the evaluation does not solely reside in satisfaction of needs & wants, but also in desires, purpose & welfare of others — and, yes, that includes global & country as well as individual.

I say all this because while self-interest is extraordinarily powerful, it is not the end all.

And you know what? Most of us know that in our heart of hearts.

So when a leader stands up and suggests it is all about you and that ‘the other people’ who build initiatives and businesses which recognize the other circles of interest do not have your best interest in mind, while it sounds tasty, we know it will give us heartburn later.

Oddly enough I think of this type of false leadership as someone who is willing to put down the virtues of other people simply to bolster their own.

===============

“We’ve all started to put down the virtues of the other factions in the process of bolstering our own. I don’t want to do that. I want to be brave, and selfless, and smart, and kind, and honest.”

Four <Divergent>

=============

And because I just pulled a quote from the Divergent series let me share some words in the Dauntless Manifesto:

=======

“We believe in ordinary acts of bravery, in the courage that drives one person to stand up for another.”

Dauntless Manifesto <Divergent>

===========

Well. There is a thought for any business leader to wrap their head around. No. There is a BIG thought.

In a me, me, me world <or at least it sometimes feels that way these days>, in a world where if I see something like ‘no one will stand up for you but yourself’ … or … ‘the only one you can count on is yourself’ one more time, I will, well, begin to lose a little faith in humanity. Needless to say this thought is something we should all wrap our heads around. Especially someone whose responsibility it is to view the three concentric circles of interest and lead people through them all.

A good leader need not be brave but they certainly must have some courage – courage to tell the truth & courage in convictions.

Therefore circles of interest may actually come down to ordinary acts of courage.

Courage as in stepping in front of criticism.

Courage as in stepping in front of ‘doing nothing.’

Courage as in stepping in and doing what is right <even if it may not be the easiest thing to do>.

Managing the circles of self-interest as a leader is an almost impossible task.

Pull one lever and another lever is released.

But I would argue, vehemently, that the leader who embraces the circles of interest in their interconnectedness inherently understands that separation is an illusion.

====

“The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation. Things you think are separate and different are actually one and the same. We are all one people. But we live as if divided.”

The Last Airbender

===

While as a leader you seek to identify with the individual as unique the underlying truth is that we are all one people who simply live as if divided. And that belief is at the core of how one manages against all three concentric interest circles as you work continuously to see that employees identify their personal success with the success of the organization and the industry itself.

Anyway. Great businesses, and countries, are multifaceted and multidimensional. I would suggest inherent in that strength are natural divides between the facets and the dimensions andnatural connections between the facets and dimensions. Good business leaders know that. And they don’t fight it but rather simply figure out a way to get all the squirrels herded in the same direction.

From the outside people may only see squirrels running around aimlessly.

From the inside you see squirrels digging up sustenance and storing it up at the nest for the benefit of the future survival and prosperity.

And it all revolves around ‘circles of self interest.’

That is the challenge every leader faces in managing a business and a larger organization. And the multiple circles make it often extremely difficult to judge leadership <because we would prefer the simplicity of judging one circle not how they all coexist>.

As Montaigne said … “truly man is a marvelously volatile, various and wavering creature: it is difficult to base a stable and uniform judgement upon him.”

A good business leader juggles the circles of self interest and sometimes it is a little volatile and almost always wavering in some way. Yet, when well done and well-articulated, it is marvelous to see and offers marvelous benefits to all circles of interest <success in one begets success in another>.

What I can unequivocally state is that any so-called leader who focuses solely on one circle <your self-interest is most often the one> is not a leader … and should not be trusted.

I admit.

I have little, if no, patience for a leader who suggests he/she will make all decisions based on self-interest, or what is best for the ‘kitchen table in every home’, and by doing so success will “trickle up” to all other circles of interest.

I have no patience because it is not only a lie but is ignorant of how things work … well … if you want enduring success that is.

I have no patience because, in their lie, they are creating a vision of heaven for you which, in reality, is a hell for all.

“I’ve been injected with false hope so many fucking times I’ve lost count”

—–

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

―

Bernard Cornwell

=============

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

I believe hope is stronger than … well … pretty much anything.

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

I believe everyone deserves someone to give them hope when hopelessness seems the only thing available.

That said.

While, technically, false hope is a simple definition, realistically, there are a couple kinds of false hope.

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version of ‘offering a fantasy unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.”

And then everything in between.

Hope, in even a false way, has many dimensions. And within any and all dimensions I would suggest even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where false hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size.

Even with a glimmer hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities. The truths which are more likely to showcase the horizon you are not only gonna be stuck looking at but visiting at some point <which is not the horizon you had actually hoped for>. But false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous than that <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality>.

It actually is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit. False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective.

How does that most often happen?

You are more likely to make some smaller, more impactful, poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there.

By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects.

Real hope. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. The real truth is that real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes. That said. Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah. False hope is not always something with “no knowable chance of coming to fruition.”

Yeah. As I stated in the beginning someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something so unrealistic, well, that really isn’t false hope that is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

But, to be clear, false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested … but has some tested competency.

They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed.

Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise.

That is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

Well. They have delivered on hopes therefore, in some weird equation of Life, a false hope has becomes a real hope delivered.

Look. My point is hope is hope.

And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up, any hope is better than no hope. You can either not have hope, or have false hope, or real hope <albeit ‘real’ and ‘hope’ is a tenuous relationship>.

To be clear … all actions should be determined by reason, logic and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.

But hope is … well … hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at exactly the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hoe is fraught with some potential falseness an some potential truth.

Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept.

Fortune, luck, hard work & preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope. Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore to accept any hope, false of true, you have to accept the existence of possibilities – good and bad.

To me, in my pea like brain, all false hope implies is that the odds are against you and success is slim, yet, people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles. And, in that point, is where I could argue that false hope is as good as any hope out there.

For in that statement if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s not false that is real.

Having led people I do not use hope flippantly even though I believe in hope as a leadership responsibility.

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

I do believe people want someone to accept some of the burden of the bigger more visionary aspects of Life.

I do believe people want to contribute, personally, within progress toward a specific hope for something better.

I do believe Hope, false or true, is hope.

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

They’re interested in being looked after. They’re interested in a tale being spun… Mighty men have moments of great despair that common people do not want to know about.”

“Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.”

―

Anne Bradstreet

==============

……… tweet from Republican National Party on June 14, 2018 ………….

Join or Else. If there is one common theme Trump and his merry band of corrupt amoral yahoos have espoused, this is it. Yeah. They may cloak it in some vapid superficial niceties, but, in the end, it “Join or Else.

That said. (stepping back to my words of January 2017)

———————————-

Well.

Yesterday was an interestingly disturbing day to begin “the new era of The United States of America.”

I listened to the Trump inauguration speech with growing horror. It had all the trappings of authoritarianism wrapped snugly in a blanket of patriotism & promises of wealth, security, strength and ‘greatness.’

I listened to it not just as a citizen but as a business guy.

Yeah. Populism can be seen in business just as it can be seen in politics. In business it can be called ‘the cult mentality’ and more often than not its leader is a ‘less-than-benevolent’ dictator. Let’s call it a ‘join, or else’ culture. You can drive membership in this culture a couple of ways … both grounded in fear.

Fear of losing <part 1>.Outsiders are trying to steal what is ours … people who don’t believe in what we believe in are trying to steal what is ours … join us because we are the people who count and matter.

I do not want to lose what is rightfully mine.

Fear of losing <part 2>.I am on the outside looking in and … well … holy shit … if I don’t join I am gonna lose everything <or be branded as a non joiner>.

I will join because if I don’t I am up shit creek without a paddle and lose what I have.

Businesses try this shit all the time. It is their way of building a strong culture, claiming it is inclusive, albeit inclusive is grounded by ‘a tight set of club rules.’ They will argue it is not a tight set but rather a basic construct which binds people in a good way … you call it tomato and I call it rotten. This Trump version of populism is, well, it goes beyond corporate cult culture. This version is close to being batshit crazy dangerous thought leadership.

Let’s look at the brochure and talk a minute with the Trump Club recruiter.

The cover of the brochure suggests an unstoppable America, driven solely by self-interest, in other words, our Club wins at all costs at the expense of anyone who stands in our way! <“if you want to win, join us” it says …>.

It further reads with threatening all those who might stand in the way of this Club and it’s winning/great objective. It contains an adamant stance of ‘no real choice’, i.e., a demanded unity not an asked for unity.

Yeah.

Some of the club benefits look awful good in the brochure … more & better jobs, stronger economy, stronger security, less business regulations and country pride. And then I turn over the brochure just to check out the legalese, the cost of the benefits as it were, to explore how the promises of the Club will be delivered.

The headline on the back of the brochure really wanted me to join this club … the message of “join today because today is the day the people become the rulers of this country.” I vaguely remember that being the call of the French Revolution but it sounds cool <although I could swear we, the people, have been voting in people as representatives for awhile>.

But. Whew. It sounds good. I like it.

It feels empowering and inspirational with the added comfort that I will no longer be one of “the forgotten people which will be forgotten no longer.” I know for sure that would like to not be forgotten and being part of a club would be nice and … well … gosh … uhm … now that I think about it … I didn’t know I had been forgotten.

The recruiter leans forward and says “of course you were, the intellectual globalist elite in Washington and around the world have been keeping you down … they don’t care about you … they have forgotten that it was you that made them part of the wealthy elite.”

Ok. But didn’t your Club President build his wealth off the backs of ‘forgotten people’ and … well … it seems like they aren’t any better off but he is a shitload better off, doesn’t it?

Oh … no, no, no … he appreciates everything they have done for him. Hey. And don’t you want to be wealthy too?

I look down at the brochure and I see the bolded ‘make wealthy’ words and have to ask the club recruiter, decked out in an ‘America first’ hat and neatly pressed ‘make America great’ uniform like shirt, I ask the recruiter … “this becoming wealthy thing … its sounds an awful lot like Amway.”

Oh, no, it is nothing like that at all. Our Club will make everything great for everyone and you will have great opportunities to get the wealth you have always deserved, but haven’t got, because the lazy, less than hard working elite will not get it anymore … we will make sure you get your fair share. Hey. Look at this picture of the Club President in his office … check out the gold curtains … the gold rug and the gold fixtures … that is wealth. That is what you can be part of!

Oh.

And, look, if you join today you get a hat <which you should wear as often as possible so that we can tell who is in the club and who isn’t>.

And, even better, we should have some additional pieces of apparel you can wear soon. In fact … we will have special uniforms & badges for the original club members to showcase their elite status in the club … everyone will want to wear them.

Ok. One last question … your club is “God’s chosen.” I didn’t know God chose … I thought he was all about equal among all men. Does this mean that other clubs don’t believe in God or does God just favor us? And does this mean I have to believe in your version of God and … well … what exactly is your version of God?

“Oh.

Well.

We are a Christian based club … but of course we accept anyone. But don’t forget … Christianity, above all, outlines all the values which lead to a better version of yourself … and, well, that is what we want all Club members to be able to achieve. Everyone should have values, don’t you think?”

Whew. This is fucking crazy shit going on

To be clear. A shitload of the club leaders and followers are going to try and draw some false comparisons and equivalents to past American heroes.

To be clear. This is significantly different than Thomas Jefferson’s plea for unity in his inaugural address in 1800 — “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

The Trump club has one principle and one opinion.

There is no room for anything else. More important than color of skin, religion, gender … this may actually be my root concern with ‘the club’.

The main principle?

Believe what I believe … or you are not a true believer.

That kind of seems to be the club. Kind of an “us versus them” attitude … uhm … although us <being a US citizen> is actually also them <being US citizens>.

“Oh no … no … why wouldn’t you believe in the United States of America if you lived in there? … everyone believes that. And if they don’t? … well … they should.”

Anyway. Oh. One last question. I didn’t hear it anywhere from the Club President or see it in the brochure … do you guys have a constitution?

Oh, we don’t need one. We just demand a ‘total allegiance to the Club’ … oh … which believes the same things as the country wants … so you should be all for it.”

(ME) Gosh. I am not sure I can join this club … I already have a constitution I live by … and my allegiance is, first & foremost, to that and not some Club and how they think. <period … end of statement>

Look. The one thing Trump was 100% right on is that January 20, 2017 was the dawn of a new era.

“Now comes the hour of action.”

That was the call for the Trump Club. “Join or else”is what should be heard.

Just to be clear.

I am a believer in God <however you want to define it>.

I am a patriot <however you want to define it>.

I am a proud American <however you want to define it>.

But I am not joining the club called “Trump America.”

In fact … I say ‘fuck you and your fucking club.’

As for what I will do? …………….

===============

“I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.”

“In short, not only are things not what they seem, they are not even what they are called!”

Francisco de Quevedo

————-

Ok. So I just wrote about growing up evenly <http://brucemctague.com/growing-up-unevenly > and it made me think about the slightly absurd worldview of ‘building a brand’ & having a nice neat brand idea. Absurd? Yup. First & foremost because I don’t believe you can build a brand.

Well. I imagine you can certainly try. But a building suggests a solid unmoving construct kind of like maybe a shopping mall or a bank branch <oops … not particularly positive examples, huh?>. Therein lies the underlying absurdity. The construct. The unmoving unchanging body and a suggestion of ‘evenness.’ To be fair the foundational aim for any brand has been and remains the same as always — to consistently express singularities which consistently distinguish the offering of products and services. Within these singularities, or distinctness, people will seek values, leadership, assurance, clarity and personality <or character>. Maybe better said some promise a person can attach some value <not values> to which embodies the company who actually offers you the brand.

I say all that because you invariably need to grow your brand unevenly. Yup. Sorry. A brand isn’t, probably shouldn’t be and most likely cannot be <and be successful> ‘even.’ Smooth. Without any ragged edges. It needs to be grown unevenly <which is actually a natural growth rather than some manufactured growth>.

Uhm.

Just like a child. Your household has some values, attitudes & belief and you bring up the best kid you can within that framework. Build a strong character. Encourage them to embrace their potential. Put them in the best possible situations to succeed and you let go of them and let them go into the world. They’ll make their own friends <some you would not have chosen and some you would have> and they’ll do things that will make you want to tear your hair out over … and at other times they will make you beam with pride.

But unless you are some control freak nutcase you are not by their side telling them what to do and how to dress and what to not do every minute of the day. They assume a personality of their own doing what you hope is the right thing because you brought them up right.

This is just like growing a brand.

If you do it right people will gladly welcome you into their circle of acquaintances <and sometimes friends> and give you the prime brain space every marketer is so desperate to get hold of.

All that said. In theory, philosophically, a lot of marketing experts, or normal non expert people, will nod their heads when they read this and sigh <sagely of course> “that is so.” But. In practice? In practice they will freak out over this idea. Not control the brand? Not build it so perfectly and then protect the perfection that is the brand <on paper at least>? Bottom line. They will freak. And then they will become maniacal brand control freaks. They do so even though most marketing people know that a brand isn’t a package or a logo. They recognize it is more like a living breathing personality. But too often these same experts get trapped in the nice even edges found in a ‘brand symbol’ <think a logo or a package> and they want to try and control how the symbol connects to miscellaneous thoughts, emotions and information stored in the human brain.

Unfortunately … since everyone’s brain is wired differently … we see and feel different things. Someone may see a bottle of Coca-Cola and think of ‘the real thing’ and someone else may think ‘happiness’ and another may think empty calories <add in something else on this list>.

Look. We’re not sure exactly how or where the human brain makes the connections that make branding possible. We may never find out. But one thing we know is the brain craves simplicity … uhm … and also complexity.

Uh oh. Simplicity and complexity? That sounds so uneven. It is. Therein lies the beauty & power of unevenness.

Regardless. Before I get to the complex let’s talk the simplicity part of the equation. You do have to focus … and gain some simplicity in terms of a tight ‘core’ … from which the brand character resides on <some will call this the platform>. There are some basics to get the ball rolling on the uneven path to growing a great brand:

———-

Whatever one may wish to call the experience, there are certain basic concepts to take into consideration:

Two fundamental elements:

straightforward presentation of the experience

honesty of thought, word and deed as regards the company

—

Three keynotes:

corporate conscience,

shared story-building

participatory and open co-creation processes

—

Four roots in reality:

Although many people may be involved in what is a completely open process, it is the company which creates the intent and is in control.

Even when a story is built, we must at all times remember that success is always enjoyed by those who are backed by great products and/or services.

It is about values and the consistency with which the promise made by the company is built.

Cristian Saracco

————

Please note the simplicity begins with the organization itself <whew … and when is that ever simple?>. Beyond the actual product & service, the organization has to be the natural <please note the word natural> origin for the products & services <some misguided people call his “authentic’>. What do I mean? Well. The product or service has to ‘look right’ coming from the organization. Maybe call it the ‘eye test’ <boy … that sounds non-technical and uncomplicated doesn’t it?>. Getting this part of the brand right matters. It matters because frankly … it needs to stand out <please note that I suggested the brand stand out … not the marketing or advertising>.

This part of the brand needs to be distinct because in a complex sometimes overwhelming abundance of choices available to us 24/7 … some simpleness will stand out. Well. Maybe not simpleness … but the consistency of character <combined with function of course>.

<note: and maybe one of the issues in discussing brands and branding these days is that we confuse simplicity & consistency? … just a thought>

Look. Consistency matters because the world has become more, well, less consistent. In 1998 the average U.S. office worker received more than 160 messages a day via e-mail, fax, voice mail and conventional mail. Today the number has almost quadrupled. Enter a supermarket and you are most often faced with over 37,000 different products with distinct SKU’s <stock-keeping units> compared to 8,000 in 1970. Orange juice choices have gone from 20 to 70 in the past 30 years. Coke 6 to 25. Even Philadelphia Cream Cheese has gone from 3 to 30.

Choices abound. And some good choices I may add.

Anyway. Growing a brand means it has to fulfill a clear promise. Promises are simple and complex, but suffice it to say, in this case, you make a promise and deliver upon it. Simple as that <and as complex as that>. Here are some basic steps simplify <or at least clarify> some things that make up the foundation blocks for growing the brand unevenly:

——

– company assessment

The first step in growing a brand is to assess the brand ‘parent.’ There are several methods for obtaining this information from the end-users but suffice it to say that if you don’t know your company <culture, belief system, aspirations> you will never rear your brand properly.

– research

Whether you think you need it … do some research. Research will not only provide qualitative information from key stakeholders, including internal and external customers and influencers, but also flesh out the raw concept that resides in the vision.The number of interviews <participants in research> will vary according to the typical number of end-users that would have an opinion about your company’s image.

The total number of potential end-users may be very small in b2b compared to a consumer product such as toothpaste.

Regardless.You are seeking some consistent feedback … you hear the same feedback over and over. The information collected from the survey is the foundation on which your brand platform will be established. You may find that once all the results are summarized, the information is very much in-sync with your organization’s internal perception of itself.

—

<note: don’t fool yourself into believing the exercise was a waste of time or a worthwhile effort in this situation … it is not only a sanity check but it also alleviates a lot of second guessing at a later date and plays a significant role in aligning everyone on what matters>

—

Research can be used for a variety objectives <value of offering, validation of offerings, etc.> but at minimum use research to best articulate your ‘reason for being’ as a business. this information is like placing the pebble in your hand so that you can drop the right pebble into the middle of the pond. The wrong pebble in the wrong dropping zone and … well … you get the picture.

– competitive audit

You are going to be who, and whatever, you are. Studying the competition shouldn’t change that. However … by auditing and assessing the competition you can better asses how to best articulate who you are and what you are in ways that insure some distinctness. It is essential to provide a clear differentiated <or distinct> message.And any value in efforts to growing a strong brand will be lost if you haven’t given people a compelling reason to buy the product.

– identifying the key brand elements

There are several elements that need to be defined in the branding process. This is the process of establishing both the tangible and intangible attributes to make the brand distinct. Think of the most basic platform elements as:

1. Vision or Mission Statement

The vision statement may be called the core belief while the brand promise may be entitled the brand essence. The vision expresses the philosophy driving the organization. It unites the internal team to a common path. It is a clear sense of destination.

—

2. Core Identity Concepts <character>

The organization’s core identity … the company character statement. The core identity captures the set of association, and values, the organization wants to create and maintain. The core identity should be easy to communicate and consistent for all products. The core identity, while very personal, should take into consideration:

– Understanding of customer needs

– Integrity and honesty in doing business

– Passion to meet and exceed standards and expectations

3. Brand Promise

Simply stated it is what the customer gets from your brand. The promise distills the broad ideas of the platform without losing meaning. The promise drives the value proposition and provides differentiation that can last. The brand promise is sometimes also referred to as the brand essence.

4. Value Proposition

This represents the functional and emotional benefits customers expect to receive by working with the branded company. The proposition reflects a balance between the aspirations and reality of what the brand is able to deliver.

The functional benefit is the real world outcome of choosing and using the brand.

The emotional benefit is the ability of a brand to make a user feel something.

5. The Truth line

This is a line, or phrase, which can be used in all marketing and promotion materials.

It should clearly describe “the business” that the brand is in. It is a descriptor of the brand. This may be one of the most difficult elements of the platform to identify. The effort to try to “boil down” all aspects of your company’s product or service offerings into a simple phrase is not easy.

6. Brand Story

An organization doesn’t have to be famous to have an interesting brand story. This legend of how the brand got started is used to preserve and enhance a brand’s heritage. It can provide inspiration and motivation for customers, employees and stakeholders. This story can be used anywhere at any time because … well … it is a story. And people like good stories. I say that because this isn’t a technical manual but rather a personal story of the brand.

——

Ok. Those are the basics with regard to the simplicity aspect of growing an uneven brand.

By the way. Please note that all brand platforms begin internally. Not externally. Call it ‘inside out thinking to insure success.’ I am not suggesting completely ignoring the external <market opportunities, customers, attitudes & perceptions> but I am suggesting that a brand exists in the soul of the company <just as in the desires and souls of parents with a child> … and not in the soul of some external constituent. The outside constituent may define the value of your soul or assess whether it has some meaning, but a brand platform is YOUR platform.

A foundation from which your brand <in people’s minds> needs to inherently, truthfully, connect with the organization inner mind. Something steadier than some whims of a moving mass of irrational people.

Ok. That was the simple part of a brand.

Which leads me to the close … which is about unevenness and the fact a great brand grows unevenly.

Just like people. And then there is the complex side of what a human brain likes. Complex? The unevenness that makes brand interesting and human. Even imperfect in some ways. I will admit. I cannot write a lot about the uneven complex dynamics of growing a brand because its unplanned.

It just happens.

As this brand you have nurtured is allowed to leave its home and go out into the world it begins interacting with different brands, different people and different situations. Each of those interactions creates some context in which the brand evolves and adapts. As it happens you can choose to adapt or not adapt. All I can tell you for sure is that the brand you envisioned will grow up to be something not exactly what you envisioned.

That is a truth <that not many branding experts will tell you>. But you know what? I am not the same person I was when my ‘brand’ first stepped out of the home. I would like to believe that I some ways I am now a better ‘brand’ for all the experiences and Life I have encountered. A business should take the same view with regard to brands.

Anyway. Suffice it to say the the power of letting a brand grow unevenly is that it makes the brand ‘human’ <not authentic> and interesting. This matters because the challenge is that minds are like real estate in that space is limited and we can’t let every brand have a place to stay. Unevenness improves chances of gaining brain space and making a connection – a brain and brand connection – that will truly inspire something other than a ‘price’ relationship.

Growing a brand unevenly. Not for the faint of heart. But certainly has its rewards. It must relate in human terms to human beings and relate evenly between who & what the company is, and inherently promises, day in and day out.

If a brand that doesn’t appeal on basic human levels, it really has no hope of success in today’s marketplace. Don’t expect this journey to be easy.

Just as rearing a child with its slight haphazardness, a brand takes some discipline, a strategy that moves from simple to complex and a combination of rational and emotional. But, in the end, if you grow it right you will have reared a simple human with character & truth and the power to touch people and some unevenness. An uneven brand is interesting. It has some character. And it will be stronger in adulthood after running the gauntlet of growing pain youth.

“Don’t lose touch of reality, it might drive you insane if you’re locked in your own world of possibilities for too long.”

—

Unknown

====

Ok.

This is part business and part social media culture thinking and part how the world is coalscing into smaller worlds, with world views, and some thoughts about those worlds.

The world as it exists within social media is different than the real world. What I mean by that is while we blather about some massively interconnected world it is far more likely you are part of a 10 million twitter following and that is more often than not is your world. Or. If you are part of a 5 million blog feed following that is more often than not your world.

This may sound counter to what everyone suggests about the role of media in influencing people. The truth is that the concept of ‘mainstream media’ <which, in my eyes, is being so poorly discussed and labeled similar to how political correctness has become the go-to phrase of the day> has difficulty penetrating an established social world. Tidbits get filtered in and then bounce around this parallel universe in which the facts create new constellations that the real world cannot see, do not see, when they look up at the sky. Inevitably all these tidbits feed on itself and only grow stronger and stronger the longer they exist within the world ultimately helping to share real tenets, beliefs, rites and established norms

The trouble is that, in this social world, thoughts and untruths and truths echo as equal opportunity informers. This begets a real world truth … and a parallel world truth. Sometimes they can be the same, sometimes just similar … and sometimes a parallel truth which, well, as parallel suggests … travels a lane that never intersects with the real world truth.

Some of us older folk and maybe some real world truth tellers gnash our teeth and pound the tables and imagine if we yell loud enough, or calmly tell the truth in maybe a different way <the ‘go-to’ thought by older folk is ‘be visual … it is a short attention span world’>, that somehow we can communicate the business truth or the Life truth or real world truth or whatever real truth which will impact the alternate world we are frustrated with.

Well. That is a slightly ignorant and totally egotistical view <as well as it will get you nowhere>. Whether we like it or not an alternate world is a real world in and of itself. It may not actually be a reflection of real truth or overall reality per se but that alternative world captures the reality of that ‘follower world.’

That world takes on the same characteristics of any traditional civilization and culture. Ethics, values, norms, dreams, despairs and hopes.

Some idiots call it a ‘tribe.’ I call it idiotic because it sells the world in which this social following lives short. Tribe is too small. The social world, and the online communities which is created in these different followings, are like small civilizations which may, or may not, interconnect with other cultural views & values, religious views & values and societal views & values.

Others may attempt to call this ‘countries’ … heck … Facebook is the largest country in the world. And, in some cases, this may actually be the correct metaphor … but in more cases it is not. Countries coexist. Worlds are, well, worlds apart. And entering into one of the larger follower social world groupings is absolutely like a world apart. Within the following are individuals who have come together based on a world view in which they do not see anywhere than in this virtual population <which are real people in a made up world>.

What I can promise you is that what each alternate world DOES coalesce around is like minded individual self-interest – views & values & aspirations. It is easy to see how his could happen.

It is incredibly easy to feel powerless in the real world but in this new world all you feel is … well … power. Power to feel what you believe and do <at least virtually at the moment> what you want to do.

It is incredibly easy to feel one person can do so little and now, all of a sudden, the individual finds themselves in a world together with individuals who think the way they do, say the words they say and want to do the same things they do. The world exists only in a virtual sense <and they now that> and, yet, they can envision this world being created as a tangible reality.

It is incredibly easy to block out all the noise <even things that may represent Truth> trying to infringe upon the beautiful sounds echoing in this virtual world.

Look at whatever news or information sharing research you want, but the majority of people seek one main source for their information. If that is true <which it is> than once you have decided to become part of a social follower world that becomes your main feed of information, truth and reality. Once you have decided to become part of this following it becomes your world and then it becomes obvious <at least to me> you now have a world mainly of likeminded people cocooning thoughts, norms, cultural beliefs, civilization characteristics … and desires, despairs and hopes.

Anyway. While I like to wax philosophically I am a business guy … and I like to offer solutions.

sigh.

I do not have a solution on how to penetrate these alternative worlds <assuming you want to>. But I imagine if I were to do so I wouldn’t barrage them with facts or pontificate about my world view <because it is counter to their world view so why would I care> but rather I would assess their world, and their world view, and figure out a way to appeal to some aspect.

And I would definitely better understand the core of this alternate world view — the self-interest. Because in the end, while this is a sweeping generalization, the main way to connect with someone quickly is to do something or say something that appeals to “me.” Me as in self interest, self esteem, self view and self actualization.

That may sound like a selfish world view but it really isn’t. It isn’t as cold & harsh as “what’s in it for me?” as the foundation for all attitudes & behaviors but rather it is a nuanced world view of individual survival within a larger world view. Think about it. If I see other worlds around me crumbling or spinning out of control in its orbit I see those worlds as a threat to my interests and ultimately my survival. Therefore I am going to want to be part of a world in which an orbit is established, a global climate of prosperity & fairness <however that world may establish it> & my world view survival is insured.

I say that because “what’s in it for me?” sounds too small for what I view in this alternate world this group of individuals are seeking as we try and view their individual self-interest motivations. To penetrate this word in any meaningful way we need to appeal to some sense of self … and offer a new world view in which the individual decides to find a different world to live in.

By the way. Parts of what I am sharing today pain me. It pains me because a significant thread of what I am suggesting is grounded upon two thoughts that go against everything I believe in

<1> a large group of people do not desire to be fully enlightened <or are okay knowing what they know and want to invest energy doing other things>, and

<2> I am recognizing that the individual has more power to create ‘worlds’ than societal needs.

Neither of these are incredibly bad in a larger view it is simply an acceptance I have acquiesced to the greater need – that there are worlds apart from the real world which need to be brought back into the real world.

That said. Instead of calling people stupid or suggesting they are ‘unenlightened’ in some way or ‘they just don’t understand what I am trying to sell them is good for them’ … maybe it would be more productive to begin our own thought process by recognizing these are worlds in which they are happy, seemingly productive and hopeful. In their world they are not missing things … they have things.

These are worlds of their own making and maybe we should think that people do not build worlds based off of fear or anger or despair, they build based on hope & dreams & beliefs. Think about that last thought before you start spouting off about “tapping into anger” or “driven by disappointment.” Things are not built from anger and disappointment, things are built by hands seeking a house for the future.

I finished by saying that it struck me that all the ethical systems I was discussing were after the fact.

That is, that people act as they are disposed to, but they like to feel afterwards that they were right and so they invent systems that approve of their dispositions.”

—–

Alexei Panshin

============

“Christmas is like candy; it slowly melts in your mouth sweetening every taste bud, making you wish it could last forever.”

–

Richelle E. Goodrich

====

Delighting the customer. Creating ‘happy moments.’ In the grander discussion of creating positive experiences in business, usually part of some misguided customer centric thinking, we seem to gravitate toward “special moments” in which we elevate the appropriate people’s happiness to a level in which they can actually recognize whatever happened was good.

We forget happiness is actually a Life formula in that we tend to make Life a zero sum game in experiential moments over the long haul. In other words. We naturally temper our happiness highs and seek to do things to actively fill up any emptiness a ad moment may have created.

This formula leads me to the post-happiness event let down. Someone once called this “happiness hangovers.”

I imagine any of us in the business world have felt this after a big meeting or some big trade show or some big thing we have prepared for and had some element of ‘showtime.’

That’s the same kind of funk we fall into after a holiday.

There are a couple of reasons this happens. One scientific and one mental.

Science.

The dopamine let down. Scientifically we juice ourselves up with dopamine in order to ‘meet the moment.’ Think of this as the feeling you get every time the email notification on your phone goes off… but every 15 seconds for almost 12 hours straight. Each ‘email has arrived’ notification sends a quick dose of dopamine to the brain, we get jolted <love the high> and then immediately receive another. When we are focused on this specific goal we get the rush of dopamine flowing through our brain and once the goal is achieved your body naturally reduces the levels of dopamine.

The body re-balances itself.

The dopamine high goes from high then to low. Eventually it re-calibrates to something finally normal <assuming there is something normal>.

Bottom line result? We feel bummed. We feel drained. That is the happiness let down scientifically.

Mental.

The positive feelings let down. According to psychologist Gary Stollak, psychology professor, most people have a “happiness set point.” Let’s call that a “5” on the self happiness meter.

Therefore when we get up for something and it concludes satisfactorily we rise to a high. Our happiness meter goes to 10 <maybe 11 if you are a Spinal Tap fan>.

Unfortunately your happiness meter balances out. That is partially why your happiest highs are often followed by depressed lows. The worst part of this aspect is what we fill the empty space, where that happiness used to hang out in & has now exited <the 11 to 2 gap>, with. We fill it with doubts, questions, regrets, what ifs, whatever else we could add in that diminishes the true happiness and high. Mentally it’s almost like we cannot accept the happiness was so good, so high, so as soon a the high itself is over we begin to look for imperfections & flaws with which to suggest “well, maybe it wasn’t that high.”

Bottom line result? We go high, we go low and, hopefully, normalize. That is the mental happiness let down.

Regardless.

My point in business and creating positive experiences is that it is impossible to always be high therefore there will inevitably be a low and you should seek to reset, or resettle, as quickly as possible. Effective resetting maximizes the feelings of the high and minimizes the low experiences.

This is hard because highs are, well, high and the aftermath is so anti-climactic versus the moment itself we tend to try and fill the space with stuff associated with the event trying to drag it out for as long as we can in order to put off the bad stuff I already pointed out.

It is a purposeful attempt to address the fact we continuously try to invent things that approve of their dispositions. We hate to let it go even though our body is telling us we should. This usually occurs with the last lasting experience, therefore, the letdown. And maybe that is what hurts us the most. Our bodies have left it behind and yet we continue to try and stuff our body with the trappings of what was.

Happiness let down. We all experience it. I imagine the question is – is it really bad for us to do it?

Well.

Research has linked the let-down of perceived stress with an increase in flare-ups of pain and other ailments. One study found that people experience more panic attacks on weekends, and a 2015 study from Taiwan found that holidays and Sundays have more emergency room admissions for peptic ulcers than weekdays do. A 2014 study showed migraine sufferers, in times of stress, didn’t impact migraine occurrence … but a decline in their perceived stress from one evening entry to the next entry was associated with increased migraine onset over the following six to 18 hours<they called this a “let-down headache”>

All that said. Once something is done it is never really completely gone and we deal with the ‘let down effect.’ And while we hang on relentlessly to the trappings even though the event is done and gone at least now you know there are real scientific and behind we are so silly.

Look.

While I have written about the fallacy behind “manufacturing happiness’ or the whole idea of ‘purposefully creating happiness’ I do tend to believe you can affect the degrees of happiness. It certainly helps if your happiness is more likely dependent upon some realistic expectations or maybe viewing the little moments within the larger grind that is known as Life instead of seeking some larger more grand utopian vision of happiness and big events to define happiness.

Let’s say that of now. This is where I end. Business has to manage the discrete moments of now in order to maximize happiness.

There is no code or formula for this. But I can almost guarantee if you acknowledge happiness hangover or happiness let down you will most likely end up doing something that helps.

“Long ago it was said that ‘one half of the world does not know how the other half lives.’ That was true then. It did not know because it did not care. The half that was on top cared little for the struggles and less for the fate of those who were underneath.”

–

Jacob A. Riis <How the Other Half Lives – 1890>

++++++++++

Poverty.

Poverty is the exclusive land of the have-nots or “the other half.” Most of us are not in poverty & we may on occasion bitch & moan and think we are part of he have-nots but I can sincerely say that most of s do not have true personal perspective.

I decided to write this after a disturbing conversation among friends about “hand outs” and how low income people need to assume some personal responsibility <the implication being that most are lazy, not ambitious or not working hard to change their situation>. I decided to repost this October 2012 piece after watching another member of the millionaire’s club <the Trump Cabinet> suggest , while showing Campell’s soup can & a beer can, that tariffs wound’t have a meaningful effect on the everyday America, While I wanted to say “what about my gas prices” my real thought is they don’t “get it.” A lot of my friends done and the Trump millionaire administration certainly doesn’t

Beyond the fact the core of most discussions are about how people believe other people were using, and abusing, government support systems, people just struggle to completely understand Life in poverty.

Of course I heard the infamous “they checked out at the super market with porterhouse steaks using food stamps” example. The real point was that a bunch of people think that another bunch of people are getting support <hand outs> from the government while they are working their own asses off.

So.

I tried. And after maybe making up some ground by suggesting that the majority of people getting government assistance really did need it <and there would always be a minority who will abuse anything> the next suggestion hit the conversation … someone said “I know people need help but there should be limits” <i.e., at some point we need to stop>.

Limits? <hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm>

Ok. Enough with that discussion. Because inevitably we are discussing a lack of understanding for ‘the other half.’ Yes. It is a fact that the world is becoming more unequal with wider disparity between haves and have nots than ever before (in measured history). This disparity is very real <in terms of income> and it is even more real when thinking in terms of perceptions.

Me? I personally care less about equality of income (or the gap as it were) but more on equality of opportunity. Therefore I see the inequality as an outcome of an opportunity, or lack thereof, issue.

And therein lies the issue to me.

Too many people want to see it as an economic issue when it is actually an opportunity issue. This issue is created around a belief that people are lazy and actually are happy living off hand outs. I believe the issue is that most of these people not only cannot tangibly get out of the hole they cannot even see the opportunities to get out of the hole.

That is a double whammy of reality + lack of hope.

Which gets me back to poverty and living below the line because most of us don’t understand the reality <of life in poverty> and cannot grasp the lack of hope <because we believe we live in the land of opportunity … if someone works hard enough>.

Why do we struggle with understanding? Because most of us who have it ‘tougher than we had it before’ are NOT living in poverty. Sure … a tough global economy has impacted everyone forcing some fiscal decisions. And many middle class people consider this hardship. And they combine that attitude with “if you work hard you can gain opportunity.”

Well. I hate to break the news. In today’s world working hard doesn’t guarantee anything and those of us in the middle class have no concept of the really difficult decisions many of the people who the government is helping have to make … every day. Someone at the table said “I see these people making irresponsible choices, I make responsible choices so should they.”

Well.

I would argue that those of us who have not lived in their shoes cannot really judge fairly. Our ‘responsible choices’ are not the same as their ‘responsible choices.’

Let me try this out on you. I equate a head of household in an income challenged household <poverty or on cusp of poverty> in the same decision-making grouping as a small business owner or even someone like a president of a country – day in and day out every choice and decision is important. Every one.

The difference is that they do it without the luxury of a comfortable bed, some bottled water <or a beer. in the ‘frig and a car to get away from it all.

Try this on for size. They are a small business owner who never gets a vacation. Never.

I understand, or I imagine, the question everyone seems to be wrestling with is how much should a government assist. And that gets driven by “geez, I am paddling as hard as I can why should they get a handout.”

Well.

Here is why. Because they need it and you don’t <reality>. Oh. And because we have not offered them a way out <opportunity>.

I admit. I don’t know how to offer a way out. In my table conversation I even sickened myself when I said something like “maybe our efforts should be focused on the next generation of kids … be sure they have an opportunity … be sure they have a chance at a good education <which is the research proven leveler between economic inequality>.”

Sickened? Yeah. My flippant thought implies you are giving up on a group of adults who never had the opportunity to get out and be all they could be.

Regardless. Solving poverty is a huge issue that is not going to be solved in this post.

But I can bend your ear on government assistance to low income households. Here is the hard part to tell my readers <maybe the part we just don’t want to hear>.

We may be struggling, we may not have it as easy as we have had it before as we look at our stack of bills, and we absolutely are probably more worried about paying bills … but most of us definitely do not understand sheer poverty and the life you lead when you are within poverty.

I do know that here in America the election seems to bring out the worst in us … entitlements, handouts, food stamps for those who don’t need it, etc. … all these simplistic frustrated comments avoid the fact that America has, and has had, a large number of people in extreme poverty and the world has significantly more. But our simplistic frustrated comments avoid the fact that recent global studies suggest that “opportunity” <the ability to change social/economic status from lower to higher> is not a truth in today’s America. People born in poverty and/or low income households are more likely to remain a poverty/low income household in America than in most European countries <although we do beat Mexico … but not Canada>.

In fighting extreme poverty it’s sometimes easy to lose sight of just how extreme the conditions that we associate with poverty is … even within our own countries.

Approximately 1.2 billion in extreme poverty globally. That’s those who live on $1.25 a day. That is about 17.6% of global population.

This does not count “the vulnerable.” Vulnerability measures those who are “sometimes poor” while poverty measures those who are “always poor.” Between one year and the next, many people move into or out of poverty. Thus measures of who is poor now are imperfect guides to who will be poor next year, yet it is the latter that is relevant for public policies that aim to reduce poverty. The solution is to identify those who are vulnerable to poverty—that is, who have a significant probability of being poor next year. People are highly vulnerable if they have more than an even chance of being poor in the next period, and moderately vulnerable if they are more likely than the typical person to be poor next year. <worldbank poverty data>

All this thinking got me thinking about living below the line.

Thinking about how I could put myself in their shoes if but for one week and doing a reality check.

And what made me truly decide to take the step on living below the line <this ‘line’ of $1.25 a day from a global poverty perspective> was not this table discussion among friends but rather when I heard a story about a 3rd grade daughter asking her mother for a pair of $1,500 <yup … those are thousand 0’s … I did not forget a decimal point> shoes for getting straight A’s.

I must be getting altruistic in my old age because, to me, this is lesson time for the daughter.

To be fair, if the story had been $150, I am not sure I would have got so wound up on this topic <not sure what that says about me> but the combination of $1,500 and SHOES kind of put me over the top. My hope is that I would have been a strong enough parent to have stepped back and taught a lesson. But that is for my parent readers to figure out.

Me? I am not going to preach. I thought I would do something to see if I knew what the hell I was talking about.

So let me take a second and talk about the “living below the line” thought.

Yes. That is living on $1.25 a day. Yup. 125 pennies or 25 nickels if you don’t like pennies.

The World Bank defines “extreme poverty” as living on the US dollar equivalent of $1.25 a day, or less.

Regular everyday poverty is actually $2.50 a day just to put ‘extreme’ into perspective for you. That said, nearly 1.2 billion people around the world currently live in extreme poverty, surviving on $1.25 a day. That is their <dangerous> reality.

I don’t even have to type the choices one would have to make living on $1.25 a day because I would imagine it is so far out of most of my reader’s realm of possibility that it isn’t feasible. Therefore I found a game developed by the Global Poverty Initiative that actually allows you to put yourselves in those shoes <even if it is just a game>.

Survive125 is an interactive game that puts players in the shoes of Divya Patel, an Indian woman with four children, trying to survive on $1.25 a day:

Players will be faced with many of the impossible choices that those living in extreme poverty have to make every day. It is not only an educational game, it’s a painful experience. By placing themselves in the shoes of someone living in extreme poverty, players are able to struggle with hard decisions and ultimately choose their future.

I have played it several times.

Why several? Well. The first time was simply so unimaginable to me that it ended up being slightly surreal <if not irrelevant>. So I went back. And played around with it. The first time you play through it you will find yourself going “this is not my life.”

By the 3rd time you are saying “shit, could I make these choices?”

I am honest with myself.

I couldn’t.

From my altruistic ‘children’s education’ pulpit I began as a high & mighty futurist and eventually I ended up as a more realistic survivalist.

Enlightening? You bet.

Realistic survivalist. That phrase will now enter my ongoing lexicon in discussions.

Then I took the next step. A real reality check. I said maybe I could do this for a week. Actually live on $1.25 a day for food & beverage & entertainment. Keep the car & gas, home & electricity and I will even give you the cellphone <I said to myself>.

A confession.

When I started this personal challenge I didn’t think it was going to be that difficult for just one week. I am a single guy for gods sake. I figured I could easily drink tap water, eliminate the diet coke <and, grudgingly, the coffee> and gather the ingredients I needed to throw a bunch of stuff into a crockpot that I could live on for a week or so.

I mean, c’mon, for one week how difficult could living on $1.25 ($8.75 for the week) a day actually be?

I learned very quickly that it is pretty fucking hard.

For all of the whining that I may have done throughout my life about having to budget or scrape money together to pay bills … I have <apparently> never come close to experiencing anything even near to poverty. Nor <apparently> have I experienced the lack of choice, monotony, and plain hard work that is all part of having to live on such a dismally small amount of money.

My reward for all of this effort?

A truly terrible and relatively tasteless soup/stew <because you cannot afford to buy salt or spices> that I had to ration out so it lasted the week. And more water drinking then I have done in possibly my entire lifetime.

The point is that for all of my effort I received no reward. None. There was no money or energy left for a reward. In fact my only reward was I existed for another week.

This reminded me of a couple of things:

– A life lived in poverty is met with little reward and is unfair … relentlessly unfair … so unfair that reality is grinding.

– A life lived in poverty with no possible reward of ‘opportunity’ seems a pretty dismal space to reside in within life because that means the grinding just puts you further and further into the hole.

The unfairness wasn’t the stew <although it does make you really really think about what someone in poverty feels when they see someone drive by in a nice car or watch commercials with some succulent meal sitting on the table> but it was from the understanding that all choices are eliminated. The food I bought was dictated by my financial means, where I bought it was dictated by my financial means, and my entire life was dictated by financial means. Any extraneous choices were taken away.

In the context of a real lived extreme poverty these choices would become far more serious.

Healthcare or no healthcare?

Do I feed my child a decent meal?

Clothing? Housing?

The list is … well … relentless.

Relentlessly in your face day to day. There is no relief.

As I stated upfront … this was as tiring as running a business … but with absolutely no reward or breaks.

None.

Okay … moving on <because I imagine many of my readers will think $1.25 is just not realistic>.

Don’t want the 1.25 test because you say ‘no way’?

For my middle class friends I will throw you a couple options because when I have talked about world poverty people say “but that is there … you could never live here on that.”

First …

Yes, folks, some do.

Second.

Okay. Try this on for size then.

I have readers all around the world. Find your country’s poverty level <for example … Rodrigo in Brazil would see $29.45/day is Brazil’s poverty level>.

In America poverty <not extreme poverty> is about $24,000 annual for a family of 4. Say it is actually close to Brazil’s for a single person so you also get about $10,720 annually if you are single.

That is $462 a week <$66 a day> if you are in a family.

– Now halve it <assume it is being used for home> and you have $231 for the week <$33 a day> for food & beverage & entertainment.

Single? This is $206 a week <$29.45 a day> if you are single.

– Now halve it … a single person gets $103 for the week <$14.71 a day>.

“It is the moment when what was chaos is now seen as having a center of gravity. There is a shape where a moment ago there was none.”

—-

Peter Elbow

=====================

“If one shifts the center of gravity of life out of life into the “Beyond” – into nothingness – one has deprived life as such of its center of gravity.”

―

Friedrich Nietzsche

===================

Well.

Given the recent study showing 42 people have the same wealth as maybe 50% of the world’s population I thought I would republish this awesome study completed in late 2010 called “Global Economy’s Shifting Centre of Gravity.”

Ok.

Maybe not awesome to some people … but to me? Fascinating reading <I actually read it over a vacation sipping some cocktails>.

Here is the net:

In 1980 the global economy’s center of gravity was somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.

In 2010 the center of gravity shifted to just east of Helsinki/Bucharest latitude (oddly the longitude doesn’t seem to vary much over time in this modeling).

In 2049 the center of gravity will shift almost two-thirds of the earth’s radius from the 1980 center to somewhere say in west Asia.

What the heck does his have to do with wealth inequality? Well. Because wealth is accumulating on 2 dimensions – on both the y axis as well as the x axis <just not at the same rate>.

Let’s just say that the x axis is shifting upwards globally <average wealth of global individual is improving>. This is good. This means the overall tide is rising.

Let’s just say that the people on the y axis are disproportionately reaping the benfis of a better global wealth improvement. That is bad. This means few continue to benefit at the overall expense of the many <yes, people will haggle with how I worded that>.

All that said … I would envision most people wouldn’t be surprised by this. But I am fairly sure we talk about the y axis all the time and forget to mention the x-axis … that’s my point here.

Anyway. There are some nuances to the study I mentioned that should make people think a bit.

Don’t panic.

I am not going to go into the modeling analytics … but suffice it to say this researcher at The London School of Economics knows his shit and figured out a way to analyze economic power not by clustering <which is an important distinction> but rather center of gravity <it’s kind of like figuring out how to measure the dynamic behavior of spatial economic distribution rather than simplistic clustering>. The study offered truly fascinating cylindrical spatial global maps in which it is almost like viewing an economic holographic image.

I will spare you. What I won’t spare you is what this analytic stuff means.

Suffice it to say that the income dynamics of the average location of the planet’s economic activity is shifting.

I think we all knew this in our gut but now we have actual proof. And it’s kind of sobering proof for those of us in the Western hemisphere <I include South America, Latin America and North America into this pot of people. That global economic activity moves east in this graphic fashion shows the rapid growth in incomes going to the large chunks of humanity who live in India, Africa, China and the rest of East Asia.

<note: population itself changes much more gradually therefore this sharp east-directed rise of the rest is not driven by population growth>

Overall this shift is a reflection of a lot of good things happening in the world <not America getting weaker but rather America becoming a smaller larger global component>. For example 600 million people have been lifted from extreme poverty – a large and rapid improvement in the well-being of humanity that is unprecedented in the history of this planet.

And there is more is to come. In particular, Africa and China will remain growth areas <albeit both in different ways> and poverty will continue to be eradicated.

Now.

All of this could be concerning in a variety of ways.

First.

This isn’t just about money, or income, this is about power. Economic shifts lead to governmental shifts … and intellectual shifts.

Yeah. Mind power. Sorry folks … it isn’t democracy <or any real ‘freedom of’ … although some people may debate the cause/effect of that relationship>. When economic shift permits an elevation of intellectual power that tends to be the formula for sustained shift in economical gravitational pull. I even have an example on economic opportunity … and economic opportunity lost.

We have faced a similar foundational economic re-construct situation before … only to have the economic center of gravity remain skewed toward the western hemisphere. And although the economic center of gravity was threatened at that time … there wasn’t the intellectual shift attached to the economic shift to sustain the movement.

Let’s look back at the last time we may have faced something like this.

The cold war. Soviet Union versus United States <actually … the rest of the world>. The reality is that while Russia tried to fill the void <of prosperity … or maybe better said … ‘better than what is’> and sought to increase its global engagement under the guise of government doctrine it was actually an economic battle. Huh? Think people labor versus capitalism <simplistic but you get the point>. Russia was certainly good at destroying governments and economic construct. However, because of their economic corruption they were unsuccessful in replacing what they destroyed.

Ultimately that was their failure … not a failure of communism but a failure of economy. Which, in the end, meant their failure to sustain an economic shift translated into the fact intellectual power was never maximized.

I promise you that mistake will not happen again. In fact it is happening all over again <not Russia but Eastern Hemisphere & Africa> but … but this economic shift is being sustained. There are two <to me> primary locations pulling the center of gravity. And I will outline each <and why we in the western hemisphere should sit up and pay attention>.

The two? China & Africa <some people may argue India>.

China.

They don’t necessarily destroy. In fact they do the opposite. They simply take less than successful scenarios and through economic success makes each … well … more successful.

Ok. There is a point here. What most Americans <let’s say ‘outsiders’ in general> fail to see is the “more successful” part. Many people measure success off of what we have <or how high is up>. In fact it is through those eyes that we tend to damn China.

Take a step back.

As Mao suggested for China … success would be enabling the majority to afford another pair of shoes. Not a mansion … heck … not even a house … just another pair of shoes … for a gazillion people. And he did it. And China has continued to grow.

Sure. It becomes more difficult from there. But that’s not the point. Other ‘industrialized’ countries measure them in a different way and are being foolish by doing so. China is being successful <for a number of reasons> but because they have taken what they have done well internally within their own country <helped a segment make the next step up> and go elsewhere and offer the same opportunity. They are creating an infrastructure within emerging countries, and emerging economies, <outside of China> to ‘be better than what is.’

In Africa it is transportation and communication interface. In southeast Asia its internal infrastructure.

China is becoming an enabler rather than a destroyer.

In Africa the picture continues to improve.

Wars have subsided and governments have stabilized and they are also adopting their own quasi capitalist-communist economic attitude, i.e., private subsidized by government. Their average GDP has consistently grown almost 5% annually. Over the past 8 years over 80 million households have been elevated above poverty level – to a level where discretionary spending commences in the household. Telecommunications, banking and retailing is flourishing.

This reflects a significant rise in the African urban consumer. In 1980 28% of Africans lived in an urban environment and today over 40% do. In countries where infrastructure is isolated, typically in more urban environments, this means that a more significant portion of the population has access to education, skills development and jobs <note: remember my point on mind power>. In addition, African governments are increasingly adopting policies to maintain the economic growth as they privatize state-owned businesses, open lines of trade <foreign>, strengthen legal systems and provide well needed physical & social infrastructure (a byproduct of that last factor is an increased labor force and economic distribution among the population).

So.

Having used those examples maybe I am maybe actually suggesting the bigger thought is a new communist-capitalism attitude shifting the economic center of gravity <I am erring on the side in my point of view that USA isn’t doing something wrong but rather that others are doing something well>.

I do find it impressive that traditional & evolving governments have attained this balance of communism embracing capitalism. Historically, the two are ideologically irreconcilable. Yet even the traditional communist based governments are proving to be quite pragmatic in supporting pro-growth economic policies <by non traditional communist means>.

China unapologetically clings to communism in every other sense of government policy. A number of more dictatorial based governments in Africa. Everyone should note it is Africa’s more quickly growing economies, characterized by low, stable business tax rates, responsible government spending, reasonable levels of regulation and incentives for business expansion, which certainly represent the highest growth opportunities.

As a result, their economies are expanding, businesses are thriving …. and maybe more importantly … the population is gaining a better way of living.

Once again … in my words … better than what they had.

Yes.

It is interesting to me that it is the economies of communist <or communist like> governments are thriving due to capitalism and responsible pro-growth economic policies. America has taught them well. And because of all that we are seeing a shift in the economic center of gravity.

Anyway.

Sorry. I digressed.

Getting back to the center of gravity. This study reflects how we should be looking at things. Millions of millions of people in developing countries are becoming more wealthy.

Exorbitantly? Nope.

Wealthier? Yes.

Simply moving all developing countries <or the majority … call it a ‘large mass’> to non-poverty from poverty is a massive shift. And by doing so it enables that population to be more productive. More healthy. More educated. More knowledgeable. This is simple shit. But we in the ‘industrialized world’ get caught up in the wrong issues … we assess success by where we are today .. <silly silly people>.

Ok.

Be careful with what I say next.

While USA focuses on government constitutional aspects and “enhancing their constitutional situation” … China is focused on economy.

Now.

I am a HUGE freedom of guy. But. If you want to grow and expand your government/country/culture more … a good economy is a really good thing. But having a realistic point of view on economy is an even better thing. Maybe if we look at the shifting economic center of gravity here in the western hemisphere we shouldn’t look at it as a loss of stature but rather maybe we should seek to gain some learning.

Is this post a message to our government and regulators? Nope.

This is a message to you & I that we have it pretty good here in the good ole USofA.

Is it as good economically as it was? Nope. Is it good? Yup.

This is a message to you & I that people in other countries also want their version of ‘self actualization’ and if economically it comes within grasp … they will try and grab it.

This is not a warning or threat but a suggestion this is an attitude issue for ‘we the people.’ Because with the right attitude then we can create the right behavior. But that is my next economic article. A rant on the everyday American’s economic behavior <because other cultures aren’t as addicted to spending & having stuff as we are>.

In the end.

The economic center of gravity was always going to be tugged away from America as the sheer numbers of the ‘rest of the world’ starting generating … well … economy. However, America needs to remember that at the core of economic gravity is not making shit … its mind power. The smarter the population, the healthier the population and, therefore, the more productive the population.

Instead of teaching someone else to do a job, we like to do it ourselves. And this trait has been carried over into our foreign policy.”

–

Nixon from his Silent Majority speech

==============

<originally published June 2017>

So. It is a little difficult to unpack everything happening with regard to “America First” and what it means for America short term and long term.

I have a lot to suggest on this topic, but because there is so much let me offer some overarching ways of viewing it all. I would also like to note that I am purposefully using Trump as a reference point and not Republican or Trump administration because I believe we would be incredibly shortsighted to not believe that his personal views on how the world exists <in his mind> do drive his behavior and the decisions being made:

How Trump views the leadership concept of dragging up versus dragging down

How Trump views rules & regulations

How Trump views I versus team

How Trump views uncertainty

How Trump views life only through a dollars & cents lens <driving an economics first, and only, view>

All of these views drive America First all of which <I would suggest> actually encourage an America Alone strategy. In addition, to a larger extent, all actually encourage an “every man for himself” attitude <kind of an extremely perverse version of traditional conservative ideology>.

Dragging up versus dragging down

As of this writing I have no clue whether America will stay in the Paris Climate agreement <he did not> but I will use it as an example of how Trump views America leadership and leadership in general <because it applies to almost everything he is doing>.

Leaders understand that to lead you need to ‘drag up’ behavior. This comes at an expense in that you are demanded to do more things and act a little ‘better’ without any real compensation. Yes. This makes Life harder for the leader and mostly offers no additional compensation for the extra effort. You do it because it, well, leads behaviors and attitudes.

For example, part of the Paris agreement was that United States had higher standards. This certainly places a burden on American companies. It also translates into an innovation push to meet those standards. And, ultimately, because we lead in innovation, the rest of the world will eventually buy our innovations. This leadership also encourages other countries to ‘play up’ as close to United States as possible. Our ‘compensation’ for our better behavior may not be apparent short term, but bears the fruits long term <and it is what leaders do>

Conversely, if United States drops out, the overall leadership standard drops and, as any organizational study will tell you, the overall tide of standards will sink lower as things get dragged downwards.

This is, simplistically, why leaders have higher standards in business. It drags the organization up … and not down.

Trump does not understand this. Nor does he believe in this. I feel comfortable saying this because if he doesn’t understand how his current behavior drags down … well … everything it is indicative he doesn’t understand dragging up.

Rules & regulations

I took a big gulp as I found a list of regulations the Trump administration has eliminated while we were watching the general incompetence <by the way … I am not suggesting eliminating things is any less incompetent because even on that Trump seems to follow an “if it exists it should not exist” strategy and not “a thoughtful consideration of its impact” type decision> of Trump leadership.

Think of it is this way. Trump believes if there had been no rules & regulations he would be the wealthiest man in the world. He has never found a rule or regulation he has ever liked. He also believes that if he thinks that everyone should think that. I have written about capitalism a zillion times and I have argued that unfettered capitalism simply brings out the worst in people and increases inequality. Rules & regulations, done well, tend to herd behavior <and everyone makes money>.

Trump doesn’t think rules apply to him so why wouldn’t we expect him to eliminate rules so he doesn’t even have to pretend he plays by the rules.

I versus team

Trump has never been part of a team nor does he have any desire to be a team leader. How this translates into his decision attitude is that the global interconnectedness is irrelevant to him. No. He actually thinks it is a negative.

We are not a global team seeking to win, but rather it is ‘every man for himself.’ Unfortunately this attitude also cascades down into domestic policy.

And because I used the Paris Climate deal earlier to make a point on something else I will do so again here. One would think it would be remarkable that someone who has not appointed someone to run the White House Office of Science and Technology <a person who traditionally serves as the President’s chief science officer> or has the majority of posts on the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology <a group of civilian science and tech leaders who advise the president> unfilled would feel qualified to make this Paris decision. However, if you do not value a team effort and believe “I” is all that matters then the qualified support doesn’t really matter and, in fact, could negatively affect “the I.”

That is what he is doing with … well … everything. “I” is all that matters … ‘fuck that team thing.’

All that said. Everything Trump does and supports gives the finger to anything that could be construed as a team effort. It is “I” in the world. “I” as a country. “I” as a business and … well … “I alone” is the mantra.

That said, “it has always been about me and just me” bleeds into everything Trump believes and does.

Uncertainty

Suffice it to say Trump views uncertainty as a positive <with regard to everything> therefore he is willing to commit to no long term plans or vision and, at the same time, spin the wheel of the ship to wrench it in some direction yet to be identified. It also seems to me that wrenching the entire system 180degrees creates what I offered up as the biggest flaw in Trump’s way of doing business — uncertainty.

He does this because he thrives on the belief America will ultimately benefit from uncertainty. He believes that America will swoop in now that is it is free from the shackles of the ‘old order’ <way of doing things, deals, regulations, etc> and dominate what … well … we already dominated. He mainly believes this because he believes he is smarter than everyone else trying to “win” in the aftermath of his destruction of everything.

The country that has spent decades constructing an international construct based on free trade, multilateral cooperation, a global alliance network, and the promotion of democratic values has now chosen as its leader a man who detests any structure supporting any & all of those things. He wants a demolition derby hoping his car is the winner.

This is a bad idea. Very bad. And, once again, while I am disappointed in Trump I am even more disappointed a business man <the secretary of state> thinks this way because it ignores business 101. Well. It ignores business 101 depending on whether you think America is special, exceptional in some way or that part of what makes America distinct in the world is not the bigness of our economy but rather the bigness of our idea.

That said, Trump doesn’t believe in big ideas he only believes in big money. Oh. If you have no ideas the only way to make money is to take advantage of uncertainty. The problem is that America is built on an idea & ideals and not money and while we may <if we are really lucky> benefit economically we will do so at the sacrifice of our ideas, ideals and leadership in this uncertain world Trump desires to play his dangerous game in.

Leaders don’t act with uncertainty as their compass, they use certainty to lead. Of course, Trump wouldn’t know how to lead even if given an instruction manual with lots of pictures.

The dollars & cents lens <economics first>

I am not a diplomat or some foreign policy expert, but I admit that I took a big gulp the other day when I saw secretary of state suggest that America should make economic and security needs above American ‘values.’ It seems to be that everything will be decided on an exchange of money and not on an exchange of ideas <where value is a combination of economics and values>. Yes. This means that everything and everyone will be viewed through a dollars & cents lens — if you have money, let’s talk.

US foreign policy, Tillerson said, is guided by fundamental values, but he cautioned: “If we condition too heavily that others must adopt this value that we’ve come to over a long history of our own, it really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests.”

Well.

This seems horribly misguided.

It seems to me while USA is in the ‘doing & making & selling shit” business we are also in the “doing & making & selling shit with values” business.

It seems to me that USA should not really be in the “partnerships of convenience” business where we can conveniently set aside our values & ideals but rather we are in the “partnership with ideals” business where we are delighted to do business with you but you are gonna have to accept the fact we are gonna showcase freedom, democracy and what we believe people deserve.

But, that’s me, because to Trump everything is marginalized excepting economics <money>. Let’s be clear … our values don’t get in the way of our economic interests. To believe that is to not believe in ‘value’ <in which premium price relies on some value equation above a dollar is a dollar>. Anyway. Dollars & cents seems quite short sighted. As Gen. George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, commented in 1945, Washington could no longer pursue a narrow conception of national interest or limit its strategic horizons to the Western Hemisphere: “We are now concerned with the peace of the entire world.”

To me, the pursuit of “America First” can often be accomplished best by protecting and defending the rights of others which actually includes economic relationships. On that note I dug up a speech made on December 20, 1951 by Dean Acheson which laid out a view of American foreign policy very different from Tillerson’s:

——————–

The greatest asset we have in all the world—even greater than our material power—is the American idea. No one needs to tell an American audience all the things that this holds for us. It is so much a part of our everyday lives that we do not stop to define it, or to put it into packages for export. But throughout the world, wherever people are oppressed, wherever people dream of freedom and opportunity, they feel the inspiration of the American idea.

What we are trying to do, in our foreign policy, is to make possible a world in which our own people, and all people who have the same determination, can work in their own way toward a better life, without having to bear the yoke of tyranny.

—————-

Look. I have always known the Trump administration would be putting economy, money, above all and I did outline some concerns I had about attacking a foreign policy based on transactional relationships in some past pieces … but it now has become a reality … it is commerce over conscience.

=================

“Life doesn’t get easier or more forgiving, we get stronger and more resilient.

Steve Maraboli,

=================

I think this is a little crazy to think this way as a country. Money is the currency of survival in today’s world and offers an ongoing temptation for “well, just a little bit more would be nice.” I would be naive to not understand that while 90% of us know money isn’t everything … that same 90% knows money is something. I mentioned it that way because it becomes easy to think money as a ‘this or that’ thought, everything or nothing, and, yet, in this case it is not everything but is certainly still something.

That said … Money is 100% everything to Trump and I think Trump yielding the high ground to simply gain some perceived temporary ‘economic advantage’ is simply wrong and will come back to haunt us.

To be clear … Trump wouldn’t recognize the high ground if it smacked him in the face.

In the end.

Whew.

“The U.S. is, for now, out of the world order business.” <Robert Kagan>. After more than 70 years, American internationalism was pronounced politically dead.

What is really stunning, and upsetting, to people like me is that now the United States is going backwards. It is simply beyond me that we are steering ourselves toward antiquated systems and antiquated thinking rather than moving forward to leading in innovations and ideas. I can only feel a sinking feeling in my stomach as the rest of the world understands what Trump, and his administration, apparently does not … that the United States is about to give away the markets, the technology, the innovation, the jobs and … the leadership. The unifying thread through Trump’s agenda appears to be an attempt to resurrect an earlier antiquated world which marginalizes future considerations and maximizes short term considerations culminating in a stunningly self-destructive United States act of diplomatic and economic isolation.

We have faced other crisis in our history and have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what had to be done when we knew our direction and path was right. There is a price to pay if America concludes we are now indifferent to freedoms globally as well as global issues and sit on the sidelines willing to watch it diminished under the guise of “we will not lecture or suggest we know better than you” <which, frankly, is about as un-American as you can get because we DO know better — freedom of thought, religion, speech, etc is better & good> in combination with suggesting “but we will talk with you of you have some money to give us.”

I would note that Pew surveys show United States becoming less and less popular and while popularity is not the best measuring stick I could suggest <in looking at the information> that the decline is a reflection of our growing indifference to democratic values and increasing interest in economic values.

The world sees United States under Donald J Trump assuming a transactional based relationship with the world and not a democratic based relationship with the world.

Sigh.

There is a price to pay for such positions.

Here is what I believe.

Trump’s attempt to reverse the shift toward the future is not sustainable. Going backwards never is. And while his quasi-insane onslaught against any rule & regulation under his belief that rules & regulations were the only thing that kept him from being the wealthiest man in the world he is actually going to be a horrible temporary “aberration” in the world’s long march toward the future.

I also believe this aberration will come at a terrible cost to America. We may become first, but first to the bottom looking up at those who chose to lead the way forward not lead the way backwards.

Trump is a profoundly mediocre man with a profoundly dangerous idea of how to make America First.

I personally don’t believe Trump has ever known what America First meant, it was simply a slogan to him. It would behoove him to think about this: If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great <Alexis de Tocqueville>. An Economics First strategy sacrifices “the good” which inevitably means America will cease to be great.

‘To prosper soundly in business, you must satisfy not only your customers, but you must lay yourself out to satisfy also the men who make your product and the men who sell it.’

——

Harry Bassett

===================

“We are all manufacturers – making good, making trouble or making excuses. “

——

HV Adolt

====================

So.

I have probably had to think about, and talk about, the business concept of “customer centric” more in the past month or so than I have had to do in the past decade or so.

I have seen so many customer-centric presentations over the years that made my head hurt I am surprised my head hasn’t exploded yet.

Don’t ask me why but the oft-horridly interpreted and often mis-implemented concept is making a comeback.

Customer centric, simplistically, is the concept of creating a positive customer experience at every point of the pre sale, sale and post-sale.

It’s a word we’ve been using for decades <dates back to direct marketing in the 1960s & largely credited to a marketing guy named Lester Wunderman> and most of us in business don’t really think too much about it because we think it is kind of an obvious ‘given’ in business.

The problem is that customer-centric has been mangled to a point where we actually have to figure out some wacky ways to define it <most people use it in the sense of putting the customer at the center of everything that is done>.

Frankly, I’ve never met a business person who said their company wasn’t customer-centric.

I imagine the topic keeps coming up because research with customers keeps telling these business people convinced they are customer centric that … well … they actually are not.

The most famous of the debunkers is Bain and Company who shared this enlightened graph back in 2005:

It showcases the delivery gap between how customers perceive customer service and/or customer experience and how executives perceive the performance of their organization in that context.

Suffice it to say … that gap, which can be scarily extreme, debunks the myth of customer centric in practice when a company simply looks in a mirror and says “wow I’m good looking.”

Here is where contrarian Bruce steps into this game.

Most business people sincerely want to make customers strategically important to how they go about their business, but they also know what they see from most “customer centric experts’ is bullshit.

Therefore, they do the best they can and know that … well … theory is difficult to pragmatically, effectively, implement.

Here is where I differ from most of the customer centric experts:

The most important letter in customer centric is “I.”

“I” as in “what I am good at” and “what I can actually do really frickin’ well” and as in “what is my Inner truth.”

Oops.

None of that is “what does my customer want.”

Look.

I never suggest ignoring the customer but I do suggest that before you ever sit down and talk about any customer centric things philosophically, and practically, you better be sure you know what you are good at, what you can actually do and what are the ‘truths’ <good & bad> of your own organization.

Most experts talk about “customer satisfaction” and I talk about thinking of the customer as someone with ongoing annoyance interspersed with occasional boredom and indifference.

Whew.

Now that sounds tough for any business person out there <and slightly depressing>.

But I tend to believe rather than try and build some rosy view most businesses should face … well … reality.

The reality is that once you establish customers SHOULD have high(er) expectations they are bound to go largely unmet.

Sorry.

That’s truth.

That is an unfortunate truth because the majority of customer centric practices choose to try and establish their own “best” to be judged by and … uh oh … they rarely actually keep up with the actual best of the best <because that “isn’t our positioning or what we are about” or because “oh, that is not our industry” or they simply just cannot match the best of the best>.

Setting high expectations means meeting the expectations of “customers” who will define everything by … well … EVERYTHING they encounter & experience.

A B2B customer will start thinking “experience” based on how the Starbucks barista treats them or how the Apple online assistance rep treats them.

Yup.

If you follow much of the customer centric bullshit being fed you, you will end up facing well informed customers who will be in a perpetual state of indifference and/or irritation.

Indifference will hit those customer centric practices that customers know are underperforming, and that they can avoid due to sufficient availability of the best of the best. If you’re working for one of those underperforming customer centric practices, the scary thing is not just selling less (or nothing). It’s that indifferent customers will stop being forgiving; they will stop being cooperative and giving you feedback on how to be more like other, better performing competitors. They’ll just leave and never return, without telling you why.

Perpetual irritation is just as bad: this will occur when customers are forced to buy from an underperforming customer centric practice, due to limited or no availability of what they already know is the best of the best.

In this light, pay special attention to fake loyalty and postponed purchases:

Fake loyalty: customers will continue to purchase from underperforming customer centric practices if the ‘real thing’ isn’t available. To the underperforming customer centric practices, all may seem quiet on the western front, until the best of the best suddenly does become available. Good examples of fake loyalty can be found in the airline industry: millions of frequent flyers around the world know that Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines and Emirates offer a superior experience, but since these airlines don’t fly on all routes, customers have no choice but to fly with subpar airlines now or then, or all of the time. Count on them to vote with their wallets every time new routes are added by these ‘best of the best’ carriers, even if they’ve never flown with them before.

Postponing purchases: some ‘best of the best’ customer centric practices like Apple actually manage to indirectly convince customers to postpone certain purchases. Many customers would rather wait for the iPhone or MacBook Air to become available, than to buy a new phone or laptop.

So … what should someone do?

The power of “I.”

….. Bruce’s consumer version of Inner Truth ………

Let me start with a Brucism — I have not found a lot of successful businesses that suck at everything.

In other words … if you have had some success, particularly if you have had some sustained success, it is likely you have <a> some significant expertise in something and <b> pleased some customers in some ways.

I am relentless on having businesses find their Inner Truth. It is often a difficult discussion <because it means admitting you are not good at everything> but by finding, isolating an embracing your business Inner Truth it permits the business to find its value core.

Once you find your value core you are able to insure you foster the attitudes & behaviors that feed into that value equation.

In addition, it insures the business leverages off of that foundation for any new ideas or “asks” of the organization itself with regard to new behaviors and decisions.

I have said this before and I assume I will say it a gazillion times again … “stop wishing you were something else and start loving who you are.”

That’s sounds like some bullshit Life coaching advice but the truth is more businesses, especially the ones who start discussing customer centric philosophy, should embrace this advice.

To be fair <before I begin my constructive enlightening rant> … the foundational aim for any customer centric practices has been and remains the same as always … to express singularities which consistently distinguish the offering of products and services.

And within these singularities … or distinctness … people will seek values, leadership, assurance, clarity … and personality <or character>. Maybe better said … some promise.

Growing a customer centric practices means it has to fulfill a clear promise. Promises are simple and complex. But suffice it to say, in this case, you make a promise and deliver upon it. Simple as that.

Here are some basic steps simplify <or at least clarify> some things that make up the foundation blocks for growing the customer centric practices based on “the power of I”:

company assessment

The first step in growing a customer centric practices is to assess the customer centric practices ‘parent’ <the organization itself>. There are several methods for obtaining this information from the end-users but suffice it to say that if you don’t know your company <culture, belief system, aspirations> you will never rear your customer centric practices properly. Never has the quote “be true to thineself’ ever rung more true.

research

Whether you think you need it or not … do some ongoing research.

Research will not only provide qualitative information from key stakeholders, including internal and external customers and influencers, but also flesh out the raw concept that resides in the vision.

The number of interviews will vary according to the typical number of end-users that would have an opinion about your company’s image as well as those ‘inside’ who have an image of what you do well.

The total number of potential end-users may be very small in b2b compared to a consumer product such as toothpaste but suffice it to say you seek to find the gaps & non-gaps of expertise between the organization and end users.

You are seeking some consistent feedback … so you hear the same feedback over and over.

The information collected from the survey is the foundation on which your customer centric practices platform will be established. You may find that once all the results are summarized, the information is very much in-sync with your organization’s internal perception of itself.

<note: don’t fool yourself into believing the exercise was a waste of time or a worthwhile effort in this situation … it is not only a sanity check but it also alleviates a lot of second guessing at a later date and plays a significant role in aligning everyone on what matters>.

Anyway.

In my experience … 90% of most customer centric discussions that businesses are faced with will begin with the customer.

That is the wrong place to begin.

Everything begins, and ends, with who you are and what your expertise is and what you can actually deliver. Beyond that … well … customer centric is worthless if you don’t get that right and accept, and embrace, that.

Which leads me to the next thing most customer centric experts never tell you <and I am fairly sure most of them don’t think about>.

Accepting Unevenness.

Unevenness?

What do I mean?

Well.

It seems like almost every customer centric discussion seems to incorporate some circle, or some 360degree view, in which you envelop a customer with all the love <functional and emotional> they need to create the utmost satisfaction and undying loyalty.

Unfortunately that is just theoretical bullshit because reality is just not that neat.

Just as there is no such thing as a well-rounded person there is no well-rounded business in the reality of … well … the real business world.

Most customer centric bullshit suggests you need to not only protect yourself on all fronts but also ‘project yourself’ on all fronts.

This is crazy.

Businesses don’t build themselves that way. Shit. People don’t build themselves that way. You are good at some things and not a good on others.

That said … the underlying absurdity in most customer centric modeling is in its suggestion of ‘evenness.’

The traditional customer centric circle diagram concept suggests you push everyone out toward what they don’t know <boundary of ignorance>.

However.

Enlightenment, and gaining knowledge to overcome ignorance, is just not that neat.

In fact … it is frustratingly un-neat.

Frustrating in that every time you learn something … ignorance still remains … outside your existing knowledge base. And this translates into a state of being perpetually dissatisfied <or the glass is never completely full with knowledge> which obviously can be either encouraging, or discouraging, with a person’s attitude to continue learning.

Businesses consistently attempt to fulfill their role in this ‘customer centric process’ by focusing attention on the inside of the circle and keeping everyone carefully inside the boundaries. They do this under the guise of “company consistency.”

I imagine the good news is that this helps keep employees from falling off the edge into irrelevant material & learning <and it insures all employees gain knowledge in a logical order> but it also, negatively, impedes upon <a> the way most individuals gain knowledge (which is they follow what interests them) & <b> any knowledge or learning that could be attained outside the sphere of consistency.

But here is the really bad news.

Organizations are not neat round circles of knowledge. Why? Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, organizations are made up of people, not concepts or robots.

The reality of any organization is one of a profile of an expert <or passion on a topic> in some particular domain, and not others, and therefore you will never end up with a perfect circle but rather an ellipse or some wacky trapezoid <or something>, in other words, the circle of knowledge & expertise of any business has inconsistent edges/boundaries.

What this means is that organizations are more like uneven spikey boundaries of expertise & knowledge organisms.

Thinking about your organization with regard to attempting to implement some customer centric concepts will help a business better understand their learning flaws, and learning challenges, but maybe more importantly … better understand their areas of expertise.

I say all that because you invariably need to grow your customer centric practices … well … unevenly.

=================

“In short, not only are things not what they seem, they are not even what they are called!”

The more successful path to being the best you can be is … well … be the best you can be on the things you know you can actually be the best you can be day after day after day.

This builds value and believability.

Unfortunately most customer-centric gurus start this discussion in the wrong place.

They almost always begin by identifying “weaknesses” or “where we need to improve/be better”. In other words … they begin with what is not an inherent expertise, or something the employees apparently don’t particularly want to do, and make a decision to invest energy attempting to make the organization … well … something they are not naturally.

Unfortunately most customer-centric gurus start this discussion in the wrong place.

Customer centric discussions far too often focuses solely on those pesky demanding customers <remember indifference, irritation and unrealistic expectations>. In other words. You are likely to be chasing perpetually dissatisfied, or indifferent until they are dissatisfied, people.

That is crazy. Absurd.

The better way to be the best customer centric organization is actually to identify what the company does best, that increases customer satisfaction, and say “how can we make our best better” <so we can ‘own’ that expertise>.

Some people may read this as “settling.” Or if they want to be harsher suggest that I am stating something ‘lesser than’ a best customer service focused organization.

I would tell these ‘some people’ I am a pragmatist and have a tendency to focus on the truths of reality.

What do I mean?

Let’s face it.

In the past a company <or their customer centric practices> could get away with not performing at its peak on some things. Or maybe taking a day off performance wise.

You could because customers didn’t experience full transparency of the best, the cheapest, the first, the most original or the most relevant.

Well.

That’s all over.

And things are bound to get even more radically transparent. I wrote about this years ago and called it “the expectation economy.” http://brucemctague.com/expectations-as-an-economy Reality dictates you focus on the few things you can master and be an expertise on, offer expectations on those, don’t overpromise on others <even if competitors do> and be ‘customer centric’ by being authentically honest where you are consistently okay and authentically set expectations where you can deliver upon a ‘customer centric promise’ day in and day out.

Reality dictate your customer centric philosophy comes to life in an uneven pattern which actually can stand under the scrutiny of spotlight criticism.

In the end.

Let me go back to the most important letter in customer centric is “I.”

In this case it is “ideas.”

Ideas are the new currency in business, any business, including the service business. If you have a business focused solely on “making the customer happy” you are on a fool’s errand. In today’s interconnected world expectations <and what makes a customer happy> are driven not by your competition nor any realistically relevant industry benchmark … but rather by whatever that customer has uncovered anywhere in the world to establish a benchmark.

If you and your business try to ‘follow the customer expectation’ one-by-one … well … one will quickly become a ‘none’ <as in out of business>.

Regardless.

Suffice it to say if you are not in the business of generating new ideas to refresh your ‘customer centricity’ you are not competing in the same world as the rest of the businesses out there.

I end today’s thought on customer centric with that last one sentence paragraph because inherent in almost any customer centric discussion is NOT any discussion on ideas but rather “satisfaction.”

Satisfaction, at its core as a concept, is about “reaction.” In other words, if I am seeking to increase customer satisfaction I therefore seek ways to understand how I can do it <from them> and … well … do it.

Ideas are proactive.

And maybe that is the most important word, and thought, in this entire diatribe – proactive. 90% of the customer centric presentations I have ever seen have dripped with ‘reactiveness’ … reacting to what customers want in order to make them happy & satisfied <assuming your ultimate value is driven somehow by effective reactiveness>.

This makes my head explode.

Reactive value is the lowest value you can achieve.

Conversely.

Proactive value offers you the highest value you can achieve.

I will not argue that an effective customer centric organization has to have some good reactive mechanisms in place to show responsiveness to needs but I will argue with any customer centric expert who stops there. True customer centric business is beating the customer to the spot – with ideas, solutions and service.

That is a proactive model. And that is what maximizes value to a customer, breeds real loyalty and … well … insures the business itself constantly pushes out on its own boundaries of ignorance by increasing its circle off knowledge.

Anyway.

What I do know … or am 90% sure … is that you will not hear or read any of this from the traditional customer centric ‘experts.’ That either makes me a moron or … well … a contrarian.